True. Just as there is, according to you, no absolute sound, there is no absolute predictor of fidelity to it.
Puzzling results with ATC SCM50ASLT loudspeakers vs. previous system
- Thread starter Matthew J
- Start date
tuga
Legal Alien
There is no absolute sound. Stereo through speakers is utterly unable to recreate the original soundfield.
This is probably an unassailable truth, which immediately brings "accuracy" into question. There is none.
On the other hand, the better stereo soundfields are well capable of bringing witnesses to a state of deep suspension of disbelief. Ergo: High fidelity.
Excellent question. There are those who go make and experience and share it and there are those who in only talking about audio demand it may not exist and that you may not hear it.
tuga
Legal Alien
Ah, but there is. Accuracy to the recorded signal, which is the music (in many cases was created in a mixing desk), which is all we have got.
Then identifying this accuracy in physical terms should be easy. Asserting a thing exists tends to require some evidence that it exists. Unless it's an assumption.
tuga
Legal Alien
It is, with a comprehensive set of measurements. Of course a stellar test-bench performer may or may not be to your liking. It depends on your preference.
I am perfectly happy shortlisting from measurements and then I listen for preference.
Then there is an absolute infallibility to the current data sets that exactly and comprehensively, without any doubt, identifies all sounds without fear of the corruption of any human interpretation.
All these years in audio and I've yet to encounter even a sizeable percentage of that in practice.
tuga
Legal Alien
Can you translate that to something less complicated?
I'm afraid not.
I've accepted that my original premise wasn't far off, pages back. Some people believe that all audible things must have an observable data corollary, but that this data may not easily say what this sound is or how it's made, if at all. These experts will educate listeners about how wildly undependable our human senses are, with orchestras possibly sounding like car horns at any time. Finally and very fortunately, music sounds like this data despite how impacted this fallibility may be. It is a tidy, handy circularity.
Philip Read
pfm Member
camverton
pfm Member
I do like that EMI “pursuit of high fidelity”. It is what I have aimed for and, at least for small ensembles, it is amazing how close one can get to its aims. Deciding what works is very subjective and the audio cues that work for one person will doubtless be different for another.
tuga
Legal Alien
Trouble with EMI’s approach of attempting to create the illusion of the actual performance is that Decca completely disagree!
”To pursue only the accurate spatial reproduction of a concert as experienced from the 'best seat in the house' is to miss opportuni- ties to make the listener sit up and listen. A recording is best regarded as a different medium to a live performance, and why should the recorded experience not aim to be better than sitting in the concert hall with our eyes closed? At a concert, we have many visual cues which affect our perception of the music; we can see who is playing, where they are sitting, we can see the soloists,
how big the hall is all these things serve to engage us in the experience. When we shut our eyes, these visual cues are no longer available and our perception of the sound is altered. If we want to make a recording that draws the listener in, we have to find ways to recreate these cues in audio form and reactivate the energising sense of engagement that we experience in a live performance the upper strings should soar, the basses should be warm with rosin flying off their bows, the brass should sparkle and thrill, and the tone colours of the woodwinds should come through as beautiful, individual highlights.”
- Classical Recording: A Practical Guide to the Decca Tradition.
”To pursue only the accurate spatial reproduction of a concert as experienced from the 'best seat in the house' is to miss opportuni- ties to make the listener sit up and listen. A recording is best regarded as a different medium to a live performance, and why should the recorded experience not aim to be better than sitting in the concert hall with our eyes closed? At a concert, we have many visual cues which affect our perception of the music; we can see who is playing, where they are sitting, we can see the soloists,
how big the hall is all these things serve to engage us in the experience. When we shut our eyes, these visual cues are no longer available and our perception of the sound is altered. If we want to make a recording that draws the listener in, we have to find ways to recreate these cues in audio form and reactivate the energising sense of engagement that we experience in a live performance the upper strings should soar, the basses should be warm with rosin flying off their bows, the brass should sparkle and thrill, and the tone colours of the woodwinds should come through as beautiful, individual highlights.”
- Classical Recording: A Practical Guide to the Decca Tradition.
camverton
pfm Member
Fascinating stuff and I well remember the different qualities of EMI and Decca. Decca always seemed to have greater clarity and that indeed did compensate for the loss of visual cues. EMI often sounded more atmospheric but on the lesser hifi I had at the time the sound could be a tad muddled. They sound much better on the equipment I use these days. In a way, I think they both had the same aim but had different ideas on how to achieve it.
In the end I think we are quite individual in our choice of aural clues that are most important in creating that illusion of the original. For me it is a sense of muscians having a holographic image in a real space combined with good detail - “the rosin flying off their bows”. I well remember the thrill of sitting in the front row at the Festival Hall and hearing the cellists bows digging into the strings. When I hear that bow on string vibration in the air, which good hifi can recreate, it takes me right back to my regular concert going times. Isn’t hifi equipment wonderful in what it can achieve, although that is difficult to believe if one reads some of the posts here!
tuga
Legal Alien
Yes, this is a very contentious issue amongst engineers and producers.
Do you record the room or make mix that enhances the score?
My preference is for the former approach but I understand the appeal of the latter.
I usually suggest that people compare the Rite of Spring records by Dorian (Mata) and Reference Recordings (Oue).
The book from which I took the quote in my previous post is called “Classical Recording: A Practical Guide to the Decca Tradition”. It is what is says, an exhaustive guide to Decca‘s recording techniques for classical music. The publishers have a free chapter online here:
It is a fascinating and instructive read about all the creative choices and their consequences involved in recording a piano. Definitely not simple!
https://www.routledge.com/rsc/downloads/Classical_Recordings_9780429316852_-_Chapter_5_The_Piano.pdf
It is a fascinating and instructive read about all the creative choices and their consequences involved in recording a piano. Definitely not simple!
Patu
pfm Member
Why on earth would I blindfold myself when testing anything? That's as far away form real life music listening experience as possible. I never blindfold myself when I sit down to my couch and decide to listen to some music so I never blindfold myself when I test new components in my system. Only reasonable way to test anything is to test it the way you would be using it. I guess some people prefer to be blindfolded all the time when listening to music.
Btw. Do you blindfold yourself when you test drive a new car or eat in a new restaurant? Only way to remove the possibility of placebo right?
camverton
pfm Member
I think sighted observations are perfectly valid as long as they stay in the realm of experience and opinion. The problem comes when such, perfectly reasonable, views are expressed as hard fact.